Everyone shouldn’t have the right to vote. There’s that one controversial opening sentence that some say is required to draw a reader in. Yet there’s nothing at all controversial about that statement. From an ethical point of view, it’s a true statement once one considers the dangers of allowing anyone to vote. There are glaring issues in continuing to bestow this right on anyone who is 18 or older.

Imagine the elitism, the snobbery, the condescending mindset of the writer. How much better they are than you.

I say ol’ chap is that a white, working class voter who couldn’t afford hundreds of thousands of dollars to be indoctrinated at a Leftist university? And he is Christian!? I will not stand for this!

And where exactly is your well-articulated criticism? All I see here is an accusation of snobbery and elitism (i.e., ad hominem) (boy, you people can’t reason today huh!?), an underhanded way of admitting that yes, I’m smarter than you are and can articulate my position better than you. Gifs and one-liners might work on Tumblr, generally speaking, but it won’t work to push back against an idea like the one I suggested. A White, working class voter doesn’t need hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend college. Ever heard of scholarships? Grants? Financial Aid? “Indoctrinated” at a Leftist university? Because suddenly they can’t choose to go to a Christian university that, at the very least, helps them to articulate their positions better?

Here’s the thing, I know a number of such Christians and not surprisingly, they aren’t the “abortion is murder,” “god hates fags,” “ban the Muslims” sort of folks. Go figure! I wonder what’s the difference between them and the Bible Belt idiot that gets to make a decision that affects millions of other people. I’m not a Christian by the way; I’m far from one.

What a shame you use a gift showing an actress that’s far more intelligent than you are, one that, should she disagree with me, would articulate her reasoning much better than you have. She’s also college educated, so perhaps there’s nothing curious about that coming from someone who thinks there’s a such thing as “Leftist universities” that “indoctrinate” people after they spend “thousands of dollars” out of their own pockets. If this is how you disagree, you don’t deserve to vote! Thanks for being a good example of the kind of person I’m looking to exclude from the voting process. I’m definitely an elite and I’ll be as snob as I like once I’m accused of it for no good reason at all. Never mind that your snippet from my post contains important hyperlinks. My my! How you overlook details to make a failed point.

It feels so good to read this in conjunction with the original post.

Oh, and to be clear, no one has a right to vote. It is a privilege, and no one deserves it.

It is not ad hominem to say you are a caricature of Leftism elitism and snobbery, as you admit. It is factual. Whether or not it hurts your feelings is beside the point.

@philosophycorner are we also stripping the right to vote from non-whites who have not completed a degree program too? I mean, since they’re uneducated as well, they clearly aren’t smart enough to decide policy or vote for representatives.

You missed the point and that’s okay; at least you aren’t rude. 🙂

Again, this isn’t about oppressing uneducated voters. Sure, I singled out non-college Whites because 65% of them voted for Trump. Crucially, 35% of them voted against Trump. It’s not simply about education or intelligence, and the idiot blogger you reblogged from was clearly disingenuous. It’s about empathy.

So I don’t care about age, gender, education level, religion, and so on. If you can’t articulate your reasons for subscribing to a view and thus, demonstrate your own lack of informedness, you fail the exam. You don’t get to vote. It’s that simple. You need to understand exactly how your decision affects millions of other lives. So I don’t want you going into the booth because you believe that “god hates fags and Trump does too” or “Muslims should be banned and Trump will get that done” or “keeping out immigrants is good, so let’s build that wall.” More importantly, I’m looking for empathy from all sides; I want you to be able to find good reasons for holding the beliefs of your opponents.

Notice my questions: What are arguments in favor of someone owning a semiautomatic weapon? What are arguments against this? Why can’t this individual own a nuclear arm? The latter question implies a slippery slope. Who drew the line at semiautomatics? Perhaps it’s time to push that line further back, especially in light of the fact that an AR-15 has featured in too many of the more recent mass shootings?

I want you to see that reasoning and to find your own errors in thinking as your opponents do. It’s something I do all the time! And guess what? I can’t think of any good reasons why an average citizen should be able to legally purchase a weapon of war like an AR-15. In the end, any one of us might be brave enough to tackle a shooter with a handgun. Few of us are brave enough to try to take down a shooter with an AR-15. It’s unfortunate that one teacher had to shield students from bullets; he sacrificed his life in a senseless act of violence. Ultimately, the shooter shouldn’t have been able to purchase that specific weapon. If you think so, then why draw the line there? Why can’t someone with the means purchase an Apache chopper?

Anyone who can’t deal with these kind of questions hasn’t thought through the issue enough and it’s questionable whether their opinion on the matter is valid. So far from trying to exclude uneducated voters, I’m trying to exclude inarticulate and more importantly, non-empathetic or even apathetic voters. I’m not your enemy by virtue of disagreeing with you and you shouldn’t want me six-feet under in a box because I don’t subscribe to your religion or sexual orientation or political party. It’s senseless that anyone thinks like that and uses that as basis for casting their vote. That’s my point!

We will never find an objective method to discern this, based on your suggested criteria, and I for one am automatically wary of social utilitarianism. Social success, as a species, depends on the maximum amount of inclusion, so any program designed to assist exclusion, even for very good reasons, is something I can’t agree with, although I’d like to.

The retort of objectivity, while common, is not fallacious. So very good! I applaud that. But I do mention in my post that bias isn’t bad; perfect objectivity isn’t necessary. I mean, if you hand out a math exam and one student solves 9 out of 10 whilst another writes in “Jesus is the answer” on every question, do you need objectivity to decide who passes and who fails?

If I ask: what are arguments in favor of an ordinary citizen owning an AR-15? and I get an insufficient reply like “they can’t take our guns!” or no reply at all, the person failed themselves. It’s clear to me that opponents of gun control should be able to explain what is meant by “the right to bear arms.” Which arms? Where do we draw the line? Why a semiautomatic and not a rocket launcher? Where is the line drawn? The slope on that is extremely slippery for them!

If they want to hunt, fine! If they want one for defense against potential burglars, fine! There can be firearms deemed appropriate for such needs. What need is there for a rifle capable of ripping through 17 people, mostly high school students? I can articulate plenty of reasons to ban those specific weapons rather than all guns. Yet instead of realizing that I’m trying to take specific guns, apparently I’m a villain trying to disarm them and to some of their minds, it’s so that they’re weakened when the Leftist army marches South and attacks them. Yes, people do think this way. It’s maniacal. Should they be allowed to vote being that mentally twisted? Be honest with yourself.

Everyone shouldn’t have the right to vote. There’s that one controversial opening sentence that some say is required to draw a reader in. Yet there’s nothing at all controversial about that statement. From an ethical point of view, it’s a true statement once one considers the dangers of allowing anyone to vote. There are glaring issues in continuing to bestow this right on anyone who is 18 or older.

Imagine the elitism, the snobbery, the condescending mindset of the writer. How much better they are than you.

I say ol’ chap is that a white, working class voter who couldn’t afford hundreds of thousands of dollars to be indoctrinated at a Leftist university? And he is Christian!? I will not stand for this!

And where exactly is your well-articulated criticism? All I see here is an accusation of snobbery and elitism (i.e., ad hominem) (boy, you people can’t reason today huh!?), an underhanded way of admitting that yes, I’m smarter than you are and can articulate my position better than you. Gifs and one-liners might work on Tumblr, generally speaking, but it won’t work to push back against an idea like the one I suggested. A White, working class voter doesn’t need hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend college. Ever heard of scholarships? Grants? Financial Aid? “Indoctrinated” at a Leftist university? Because suddenly they can’t choose to go to a Christian university that, at the very least, helps them to articulate their positions better?

Here’s the thing, I know a number of such Christians and not surprisingly, they aren’t the “abortion is murder,” “god hates fags,” “ban the Muslims” sort of folks. Go figure! I wonder what’s the difference between them and the Bible Belt idiot that gets to make a decision that affects millions of other people. I’m not a Christian by the way; I’m far from one.

What a shame you use a gift showing an actress that’s far more intelligent than you are, one that, should she disagree with me, would articulate her reasoning much better than you have. She’s also college educated, so perhaps there’s nothing curious about that coming from someone who thinks there’s a such thing as “Leftist universities” that “indoctrinate” people after they spend “thousands of dollars” out of their own pockets. If this is how you disagree, you don’t deserve to vote! Thanks for being a good example of the kind of person I’m looking to exclude from the voting process. I’m definitely an elite and I’ll be as snob as I like once I’m accused of it for no good reason at all. Never mind that your snippet from my post contains important hyperlinks. My my! How you overlook details to make a failed point.

It feels so good to read this in conjunction with the original post.

Oh, and to be clear, no one has a right to vote. It is a privilege, and no one deserves it.

It is not ad hominem to say you are a caricature of Leftism elitism and snobbery, as you admit. It is factual. Whether or not it hurts your feelings is beside the point.

@philosophycorner are we also stripping the right to vote from non-whites who have not completed a degree program too? I mean, since they’re uneducated as well, they clearly aren’t smart enough to decide policy or vote for representatives.

I can’t actually think of a single fucking post on this site that has made me more furious than this one. How does someone get to the point where they not only hold these views, but think they are moral ethical and intelligent?

How very fucking appropriate that OP has Socrates as his profile pic.

Read the post. Read the discussion. Tell me how allowing “god hates fags,” “ban the Muslims,” “they’re trying to take our guns” folks to vote away does any good for millions of other people. The fact is that such beliefs are immoral and destructive, and this is demonstrable the world over. Think abortion!

Let’s do it their way. Let’s ban abortion! You know what happens? Survey countries that have actually done that. Women die. Poverty persists. The mental and physical health of children is worse. That’s what happens. If women can’t do it legally and safely, they find other ways and the results are disastrous. In turn, they may fail to abort an unwanted pregnancy and now they have yet another mouth to feed despite the fact that they’re poor. Given poverty, children are eating less healthy foods, have less access to healthcare, and due to that, they are generally unhealthier than children who have affluent parents. You may scream “protection, contraception!,” and overlook the fact that they live in highly religious countries that equate abortion and contraception. “If it’s god will for her to get pregnant, then she must give birth!” It’s the Catholic way in the Philippines and some Hispanic countries.

Let’s let them keep their guns! We have so far. What happens? Shootings at schools, at churches, at theaters. Please tell me why an ordinary citizen needs an AR-15. Give me good reasons for why you think like you do.

My reasons for wanting to exclude those people from the voting process are entirely moral and despite your anger, you can’t prove that wrong. Tell me how the people who despise the kneeling protests during the national anthem aren’t exactly like dissenters of the Civil Rights Movement. Tell me how their apathy towards racial injustice doesn’t result in more police brutality and sexual assaults. Tell me how their voting in of candidates who overlook such injustice doesn’t amount to that blood being on their hands.

Now tell me if you wouldn’t want to exclude me from the voting process if I overlooked the fact that the candidates I vote for don’t care about your life and that voting them in might lead to you losing your life or going through unnecessary pain. While you overlook racial inequality and injustice, I realize that I’m not White and that because of that, I can be a victim of police brutality – even if I’m innocent. You can either go right ahead and prove your lack of empathy or change your mind and realize that despite your initial misgivings, my reasons are demonstrably moral, certainly more moral than you’ve given them credit for.

It’s cute that you think your reasons are any bit more special than others have been in the past. It’s all happened before and will all happen again. Have a good one mate.

It’s cute how you commit the same fallacy twice and still fail to correct it. I guess since it’s happened before, it’ll happen again? What you’re not getting is that their reasons for wanting to oppress Black voters weren’t special or well-articulated or moral. My reasons for wanting to exclude one-issue voters who are clearly hateful (be it misogynist, xenophobic, homophobic, racist) are well-articulated and moral. I don’t care that they aren’t “special.” It’s more telling that you have no retorts. You just want to keep painting my suggestion as somehow equal to the suggestions of White racists who wanted to oppress Black voters decades ago. You want to disqualify my suggestion by painting it as something it’s not. It’s disingenuous, uncharitable, and simply not the way philosophy proceeds. Sure, have a good day and please refrain from adding your two cents. Apparently, it’s expired currency.

Everyone shouldn’t have the right to vote. There’s that one controversial opening sentence that some say is required to draw a reader in. Yet there’s nothing at all controversial about that statement. From an ethical point of view, it’s a true statement once one considers the dangers of allowing anyone to vote. There are glaring issues in continuing to bestow this right on anyone who is 18 or older.

This is the kind of shit that makes conservatives hate academics and liberals and condemn education and facts as bad and destructive.

Yes, It sucks that misinformed, uneducated people vote in the ways they do, but stripping them of their right to vote is not the fucking solution. Jesus fucking christ.

Here’s another genetic fallacy! One of her tags read “not like those weren’t used to enforce jim crow.” I’ll set aside the abusive fallacy. Clearly, your response is a knee-jerk reaction high on emotion and abysmally low on reason. Whatever disagreement you have with my post, it’s better articulated than your short, abusive response. Yet I’m the “idiot”? Perhaps the shoe fits better on your foot.

Literacy tests in the past were very different from what I’m proposing, for one. Secondly, they were designed to oppress Black voters. As I’ve stated three times already, once in the post, second to another dissenter, and again to you, this isn’t about oppression because the non-college demographic includes Leftist voters! So while it may sound like I’m looking to box out non-college educated voters, I’m not. I’m trying to box out single-issue, hateful voters who can’t articulate how exactly “god hates fags,” that “abortion is murder,” and that “all Muslims are terrorists.”

By all means, let them continue weaponizing their vote against people like yourself. Let them do so till abortion is even more restricted, till there are more dead children on school grounds, till gay marriage is challenged yet again, till education and healthcare are defunded further, till science is defunded further. Let them have their say, so that every term or two, they have their way when a Republican President wins via the electoral college and a Republican Congress is voted in.

The right to vote should absolutely be about education, intelligence, and most importantly, empathy. I am not trying to strip Christians of their religious right, but some of them are trying to strip that right from non-Christians. I am not trying to strip straight people of their right to marry, but some of them are trying to strip that right from homosexuals. I have zero interest in abortion restrictions and defunding reproductive healthcare. I have no interest in defunding healthcare, especially for the elderly.

In the end, it’s utilitarian common sense. It’s a Kantian prescription. It’s the moral decision! Calm your temper, stop the profanity, think it through, and then explain to me why the voting rights of an idiot matters more than the rights of people I’ve mentioned, more than the literal lives of now dead minorities and grade school children! Want to get angry, fine. I can also appeal to pathos. I’ve done a lot of appealing to logos given my post, but if you want raw emotion, you’ll lose on that front as well. This isn’t a return to the literacy tests of Jim Crow. This is altogether deferent and it’s, at bottom, about empathy and getting people to think a lot more clearly about how their voting decisions affects millions of other lives.

Everyone shouldn’t have the right to vote. There’s that one controversial opening sentence that some say is required to draw a reader in. Yet there’s nothing at all controversial about that statement. From an ethical point of view, it’s a true statement once one considers the dangers of allowing anyone to vote. There are glaring issues in continuing to bestow this right on anyone who is 18 or older.

Whence comes nihilism, the uncanniest of all guests?

Friedrich Nietzsche was most famously concerned with the problem of nihilism. All societies, in his view, rely on implicit value judgments. If the foundations of these are lost, he predicts terrible consequences: widespread apathy or violent, fanatical attempts to reclaim a sense of purpose, or perhaps both. We talk about values a lot, and we know they do something, but we have little idea how. Compounding this is uncertainty over their loss. Nihilism is not a choice or intellectual commitment, but a thing that comes upon you. As Nietzsche put it in 1885: ‘Nihilism stands at the door. Whence comes this uncanniest of all guests?’

The Dying Art of Disagreement

Let me begin with thanks to the Lowy Institute for bringing me all the way to Sydney and doing me the honor of hosting me here this evening.

I’m aware of the controversy that has gone with my selection as your speaker. I respect the wishes of the Colvin family and join in honoring Mark Colvin’s memory as a courageous foreign correspondent and an extraordinary writer and broadcaster. And I’d particularly like to thank Michael Fullilove for not rescinding the invitation.

Why You Should (and Shouldn’t Be) Monogamous

By Tauriq Moosa

Why should you only have sex with the person you are in a relationship with?

After all, there exist many successful relationships involving people having passionate interactions, of whatever kind, with people other than their primary partner. This is done with their primary partner’s knowledge and consent and, presumably, consenting to their primary partner doing the same.